Bill from NYC Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, ALF said: Why didn't Israel's enemies attack them while Obama was President ? Has any administration cut off foreign aid and weapon sales to Israel ? Why do you think the situation you describe exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, ALF said: Why didn't Israel's enemies attack them while Obama was President ? Has any administration cut off foreign aid and weapon sales to Israel ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel ... Well that's different...or something like that.......I think......kinda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, whatdrought said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel ... That did not defeat Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Just now, ALF said: That did not defeat Israel. 7 minutes ago, ALF said: Why didn't Israel's enemies attack them while Obama was President ? Has any administration cut off foreign aid and weapon sales to Israel ? at·tack /əˈtak/ verb 1. take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, ALF said: That did not defeat Israel. I think the point was Israel was attacked under Obama, as it has been under Trump (and pretty much every President). They're surrounded by enemies who do not believe in their right to exist, let alone be a country. That's not hyperbole. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, ALF said: That did not defeat Israel. Just stop. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 2 hours ago, section122 said: The republicans would have won in 08 with McCain if they didn't have Palin as his running mate. As much as the DNC screwed the pooch in 16 the repubs did the same in 08. They tried to capitalize on the womens vote and grab Hillary supporters by adding Palin. They underestimated how dumb she was and I firmly believe she cost them the election. Just like the DNC underestimated how much people disliked Hillary. I'm a dem and wanted to vote McCain and still did even with Palin dragging him down. Who better to lead us out of an unwinnable war than a decorated war veteran? See what I did there? I was objective about both parties. Those Trump tweets were dumb. You don't have to defend everything he does just because you are Republican. He has done some good and he has done some bad. These tweets were a bad look from him and it is okay to admit it. I know it is politics but "go back to where you came from" to elected representatives let alone just regular people shouldn't be an acceptable way to talk to people. It is just so embarrassing to watch our President get into twitter beefs with people. Twitter beefs. A 73 year old man. Twitter beefs. No. You represented the wishful Republican excuse for losing that election. The dynamics in '08 were different than the dynamics in '16. Wall Street was in meltdown, the Iraq War was starting to become clear to Americans it was a mistake, and the incumbent Republican president was incredibly unpopular. Democrats didn't have any of those problems entering the 2016 election. Hillary just ran a terrible campaign and her lack of likability along with the lack of enthusiasm she generated cost her what should've been a slam dunk win against Trump. Palin is the only reason they didn't have 15 million less votes than the Obama campaign as opposed to 10 million. She helped energize the Republican base as McCain had a serious lack of enthusiasm. Lieberman couldn't inspire a fat kid to run after the ice cream truck. Not to mention, Plus, Obama was the best Democratic campaigner and public speaker since Kennedy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 26 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Just stop. ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, ALF said: ok Just saving you from yourself. ? 18 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Lieberman couldn't inspire a fat kid to run after the ice cream truck. LOL!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Yes, I am still a Sarah Palin fan-girl. ? It is that ***** McCain I couldn't stand. Funny how everyone forgets how horribly the media treated Sarah Palin. The embarrassing leftist dumpster diving and reviews of her public emails was simply disgusting. But make one comment about a former bartender too stupid to peel a potato and speak at the same time, and she's on the cover of Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 46 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: No. You represented the wishful Republican excuse for losing that election. The dynamics in '08 were different than the dynamics in '16. Wall Street was in meltdown, the Iraq War was starting to become clear to Americans it was a mistake, and the incumbent Republican president was incredibly unpopular. Democrats didn't have any of those problems entering the 2016 election. Hillary just ran a terrible campaign and her lack of likability along with the lack of enthusiasm she generated cost her what should've been a slam dunk win against Trump. Palin is the only reason they didn't have 15 million less votes than the Obama campaign as opposed to 10 million. She helped energize the Republican base as McCain had a serious lack of enthusiasm. Lieberman couldn't inspire a fat kid to run after the ice cream truck. Not to mention, Plus, Obama was the best Democratic campaigner and public speaker since Kennedy. No, at that time the surge had settled things down and things were relatively quiet. It was a few years prior to that everyone was up in arms due to the lack of new WMD's found in Iraq, and the poor planning for after the military victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: There is so much wrong with this post it is difficult to know where to begin... When "dumb" Sarah Palin took on the Republican machine in Alaska and won, people were shocked. When "dumb" Sarah Palin took on big oil in Alaska and won, people were shocked. And when John McCain (who was pretty loathed by the conservative Republican base) asked her on people were shocked. So shocked, that it took the Obama campaign a whole 24 hours to get people up to Alaska to go through her garbage (seriously, her garbage) and compile a negative dossier to use against her. She gave McCain a nice bump in the polls after her red meat introduction speech. The polls were not horrible (although who knows what the internals said) until the financial meltdown in September. At the point, it was the Ds election. I've always felt horrible for her and her family that she accepted the nomination only to be dragged down by that louse McCain who wouldn't defend her aginst his own campaign staff or the MSM. And, when the Ds started filing bogus lawsuit after bogus lawsuit against her in an effort to lawfare her into bankruptcy (which thank goodness Alaska changed the law afterward), I really felt terrible for the whole family. Yes, I am still a Sarah Palin fan-girl. ? It is that ***** McCain I couldn't stand. @Deranged Rhino gave you a great little education in the whys and hows of the tweets. You quotes 2 rasmussen polls unfortunately I can't read them as you have to be a member. Here is some info I found on Rasmussen polls though from their wiki: After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[69] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.[81] Most candidates receive a bump after naming their vp candidate. (An average of 5 points) and Palin was viewed very favorably when she was first named: John McCain had gained huge support among white women voters since the announcement;[14] he had not only surpassed the Democratic Party candidate Senator Barack Obama in white women voters, but also amassed a lead of five percentage points in the Gallup polls. John Zogby found that the effects of Palin's selection were helping the McCain ticket since "She has high favorability numbers, and has unified the Republican Party." However she had limited media access and bombed an interview with Katie Couric. A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven — and sometimes downright awkward — performances in her limited media appearances. Conservative columnists Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing on the conservative National Review, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.” Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.” “I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know s—t,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.” I will agree (concede perhaps?) that the financial meltdown played a huge part as well as overall republican fatigue from Bush. Palin to me though was a clear grab at the female vote and she wasn't ready to be a vp candidate. (again I voted McCain because I felt Obama wasn't prepared to be president). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, section122 said: You quotes 2 rasmussen polls unfortunately I can't read them as you have to be a member. Here is some info I found on Rasmussen polls though from their wiki: After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[69] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.[81] So funny. Forget the message. Kill the messenger. By citing Silver of all people. Next up...we discredit the popularity of Pizza In A Cup in our exclusive interview with the owner of Cup O' Pizza! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 4 hours ago, B-Man said: AOC: U.S. Must Provide Lifelong Mental Healthcare Services To Migrant Children Because Of Trauma We Have Caused AOC held a town hall event on immigration in Queens, NY on Saturday. The young Congresswoman believes the U.S. government must make a “lifelong commitment” to provide mental healthcare services to migrant children. The reason? Because of the lifelong trauma we inflict upon them when we separate them from their parents at the border. AOC told the crowd: . am i reading something wrong? Where in the world does she say that ? I am just reading the link provided..I see not one mention of lifelong commitment to menatl health. I may be wrong..but can you point out where it is? 4 hours ago, Bill from NYC said: Maybe they like President Trump because he would rather not have babies in their 9th month aborted and celebrate a "victory" like this by lighting up the Empire State Building in pink with taxpayer dollars. If you support things like this and attacking Israel you should be against our President. If not, point me to a democrat running in the primary who is on the conservative side of these two issues. I'll wait.....;) Absolutely disgusting, evil, and insane. Who cares if the Democrats are on he conservative side..that is freaking contradiction in terms no? New flash, its a democracy, usually one side is liberal,t he other conservative. And in terms on "attacking Isreal" show me one stinking instance of AOC saying anything about attacking Israel? I will ask you the same question I asked BMan..where in that link does it say she wants to provide mental health care for life? Did oyu read the article..or just buzz a headline from a hard right publication and take it as gospel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: am i reading something wrong? Where in the world does she say that ? I am just reading the link provided..I see not one mention of lifelong commitment to menatl health. I may be wrong..but can you point out where it is? From The Guardian article cited in The Red State article. Quote "The US has a “lifelong commitment” to the children it separated, she said, adding: “I believe we have responsibility to provide mental healthcare services to those children for the rest of their lives.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: From The Guardian article cited in The Red State article. thank you..now why in the world would they bury that link when it was in their freaking headling..dumb righties! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said: thank you..now why in the world would they bury that link when it was in their freaking headling..dumb righties! It's like you've never read a blog or an online newspaper before. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: So funny. Forget the message. Kill the messenger. By citing Silver of all people. Next up...we discredit the popularity of Pizza In A Cup in our exclusive interview with the owner of Cup O' Pizza! Well I agreed with the premise of one poll that she provided a bump but showed that naming a vp candidate usually causes a bump. I did look into the messenger however to see if it should be believed. Everyone should do that and I think @Deranged Rhino would agree that instead of accepting what the media is telling us we investigate for ourselves... Anyway here is more: Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard"[82] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example when Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was whether to limit the amount of salt in pre-processed food.[83] A December 2018 article by political writer and analyst Harry Enten called Rasmussen the least accurate pollster in the 2018 midterm elections after stating Rasmussen had projected the Republicans to come ahead nationally by one point, while at the time Democrats were actually winning the national House vote by 8.6 points - an error of nearly 10 points.[94] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Do an honest assessment of 2017-2018 on who is more divisive: Trump or the media. I had a whole response and got a notification which deleted it all so I'm going to give a much briefer response (my apologies!) Short answer the media. This isn't either/or to me though they are both divisive. Obama went through this with the birther movement, the Muslim claims (as if it mattered), etc. Please don't think I agree with the media's handling of Trump because I don't. They only care about generating clicks, ad revenue, and outrage. They don't care who is sitting in office. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, section122 said: Well I agreed with the premise of one poll that she provided a bump but showed that naming a vp candidate usually causes a bump. I did look into the messenger however to see if it should be believed. Everyone should do that and I think @Deranged Rhino would agree that instead of accepting what the media is telling us we investigate for ourselves... Anyway here is more: Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard"[82] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example when Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was whether to limit the amount of salt in pre-processed food.[83] A December 2018 article by political writer and analyst Harry Enten called Rasmussen the least accurate pollster in the 2018 midterm elections after stating Rasmussen had projected the Republicans to come ahead nationally by one point, while at the time Democrats were actually winning the national House vote by 8.6 points - an error of nearly 10 points.[94] If you do not like Rasmussen, feel free to search the other polling sites you do like from mid 2008 to election day. You will see how the polls tightened when he selected her, and then got wider after the meltdown (as always, the internal polls may have shown something else). Sarah Palin did not lose the election for John McCain. She made it closer than it would have been as conservative Rs would have sat home. With her on the ticket, more wandered down to vote while holding their nose and voting for that ***** McCain. However, since this is an AOC thread, it is time for me to be done with a topic from 11 years ago in this thread (WOW! time flies when you are having fun!), except to point out that AOC is not treated any worse than past Republican Women have been. Politics ain't beanbag. ? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: No, at that time the surge had settled things down and things were relatively quiet. It was a few years prior to that everyone was up in arms due to the lack of new WMD's found in Iraq, and the poor planning for after the military victory. https://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/ Edited July 23, 2019 by Doc Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 ..how come we haven't heard from "Photo Op Chuckie Schumer" lately?.....detained by Iran?.....where art thou Good Chuck??........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 31 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: If you do not like Rasmussen, feel free to search the other polling sites you do like from mid 2008 to election day. You will see how the polls tightened when he selected her, and then got wider after the meltdown (as always, the internal polls may have shown something else). Sarah Palin did not lose the election for John McCain. She made it closer than it would have been as conservative Rs would have sat home. With her on the ticket, more wandered down to vote while holding their nose and voting for that ***** McCain. However, since this is an AOC thread, it is time for me to be done with a topic from 11 years ago in this thread (WOW! time flies when you are having fun!), except to point out that AOC is not treated any worse than past Republican Women have been. Politics ain't beanbag. ? She was a bad choice. She gave a spectacular first speech. And then went downhill the more she opened her mouth. She was a terrible pick for VP and having her one step from the presidency rightfully made McCain’s judgment look more suspect. Once he did that, my vote for him fell off and I voted Libertarian. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said: She was a bad choice. She gave a spectacular first speech. And then went downhill the more she opened her mouth. She was a terrible pick for VP and having her one step from the presidency rightfully made McCain’s judgment look more suspect. Once he did that, my vote for him fell off and I voted Libertarian. To be fair, Bob Barr was a poor Libertarian nominee in 2008. I still voted for him however, since the other options were McCain and Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ..how come we haven't heard from "Photo Op Chuckie Schumer" lately?.....detained by Iran?.....where art thou Good Chuck??........... He might be busy looking over his glasses as he reads a prepared statement decrying the high water level in Lake Ontario that is flooding homes along the WNY shoreline. No action, mind you, just a sincere statement....well, a statement. Edited July 24, 2019 by Keukasmallies 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 19 hours ago, BeginnersMind said: She was a bad choice. She gave a spectacular first speech. And then went downhill the more she opened her mouth. She was a terrible pick for VP and having her one step from the presidency rightfully made McCain’s judgment look more suspect. Once he did that, my vote for him fell off and I voted Libertarian. Yeah, but in 2008 you can't run a winning ticket without a woman on it. It's why Obama chose Joe Biden. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 20 hours ago, /dev/null said: To be fair, Bob Barr was a poor Libertarian nominee in 2008. I still voted for him however, since the other options were McCain and Obama Same here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 20 hours ago, /dev/null said: To be fair, Bob Barr was a poor Libertarian nominee in 2008. I still voted for him however, since the other options were McCain and Obama The Libertarian Party cannot our up a credible presidential candidate. If they’d had someone not in sneakers running in 2018, they might have gotten to the critical 5% to get matching funds. Mostly they cant get out of their own way. The free drug culture bumps into more serious members. Watching their internal mechanisms is painful. Their philosophy is good. Their platforms are clear. Their execution is for s—t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 13 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: The Libertarian Party cannot our up a credible presidential candidate. If they’d had someone not in sneakers running in 2018, they might have gotten to the critical 5% to get matching funds. Mostly they cant get out of their own way. The free drug culture bumps into more serious members. Watching their internal mechanisms is painful. Their philosophy is good. Their platforms are clear. Their execution is for s—t. Having worked for their state party several years back, it was a joke. The candidates were not interested in running on what they could realistically achieve in a term or two. They insisted on running on their end game (eliminating the Department of education, etc.). Then, they wondered why they only got 1% of the vote. I tried to tell them, "Focus on realistic goals. State that you want to cut the federal budget by 5% over two terms. Then, run again on continuing to make incremental cuts to the budget until you get to your goal. It is much more palatable to the general public than 'I want to cut everything not Constitutionally mandated and I want to do it immediately.'" Their response was, "I am not going to sacrifice my ideals." OK. Enjoy your 1%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 ... .. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Goat Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 15 hours ago, KRC said: Having worked for their state party several years back, it was a joke. The candidates were not interested in running on what they could realistically achieve in a term or two. They insisted on running on their end game (eliminating the Department of education, etc.). Then, they wondered why they only got 1% of the vote. I tried to tell them, "Focus on realistic goals. State that you want to cut the federal budget by 5% over two terms. Then, run again on continuing to make incremental cuts to the budget until you get to your goal. It is much more palatable to the general public than 'I want to cut everything not Constitutionally mandated and I want to do it immediately.'" Their response was, "I am not going to sacrifice my ideals." OK. Enjoy your 1%. Yeah. Not budging from ideals and accepting a compromise will get them nowhere. That’s what too much Ayn Rand will get you and that’s another wing of the Libertarian party. It’s fine to have ideals but you have to be able to work with others or nothing gets done and everyone is a villain. The current Dems and Reps are a case study that the Libertarians are refusing to learn from. Most of the silent majority would be happy with a centrist who wasn’t a divisive jagoff. No one like that has a chance with our primary system in the current party structure, and a media (and viewers) that get off on the incivility of the comments sections of news stories. Almost wonder if a Civility party would make an electoral splash. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 19 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Most of the silent majority would be happy with a centrist who wasn’t a divisive jagoff. No one like that has a chance with our primary system in the current party structure, and a media (and viewers) that get off on the incivility of the comments sections of news stories. Almost wonder if a Civility party would make an electoral splash. 14 months from now during the Trump vs DemNominee debates, I want to see the moderator follow up after a few of the Democrats #orangmanbadraysis rants or Trump's tantrums with something like "My Mom used to say, if you don't have anything nice to say about somebody, don't say anybody at all. You've spent months and millions of dollars saying not nice things about one another. But what do you agree on? What are your opponents endearing qualities?" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 Just now, /dev/null said: 14 months from now during the Trump vs DemNominee debates, I want to see the moderator follow up after a few of the Democrats #orangmanbadraysis rants or Trump's tantrums with something like "My Mom used to say, if you don't have anything nice to say about somebody, don't say anybody at all. You've spent months and millions of dollars saying not nice things about one another. But what do you agree on? What are your opponents endearing qualities?" Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan used to have a weekly dinner and drink together. Both sides use rhetoric that seems to have forgotten that we are all “us.” I don’t think the majority of voters deep down believe it but the words deepen the divide. Echo chambers of all sorts too. And even partisan gerrymandering (which is a tool of both parties). If Nancy, Trump, and McConnell would share drinks on Friday nights, just that simple gesture, I’d feel a lot better. And I bet more ***** would get done in a better way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 41 minutes ago, /dev/null said: 14 months from now during the Trump vs DemNominee debates, I want to see the moderator follow up after a few of the Democrats #orangmanbadraysis rants or Trump's tantrums with something like "My Mom used to say, if you don't have anything nice to say about somebody, don't say anybody at all. You've spent months and millions of dollars saying not nice things about one another. But what do you agree on? What are your opponents endearing qualities?" If that happened IRL... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, B-Man said: . Have these people lost their minds?! They took a picture of two ‘ congressmen’ from the SAME party meeting in their office. I have about ten meetings today....should I remember to bring a photographer? GET TO WORK DAMMIT 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 How did I miss this ? ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: How did I miss this ? ? So AOC is now willing to work with people she considers racist? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts